Use JPEG and forget RAW?!

[Tapper123]

Having compared Olympus JPEGs to equivalent RAW files, I always shoot RAW+JPEG.

JPEGs are useful for quick access to images. But you can get cleaner, more detailed files with RAW, with a much more uniform film-like noise "grain" and better control over shadows, highlights and colors. If I make an image I want to use beyond the computer screen, I will process the RAW and tweak it to perfection.

But in the end just shoot whatever image format makes you happy.

 

[Photo Pete]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

Looks like someone doesn't understand RAW

 

[Ross]

On the other hand a professional digital printer commented that to actually see the detail hidden in a file you have to up-rez and print from there. Strange idea but he prints for big names at gallery sizes.

He probably has a process that works that he doesn't fully understand technically. My theory of what he's talking about: Photoshop is better at interpolation than a printer's internal software and you tend to get finer results supplying a certain resolution file to your printer (Epson printers are most comfortable at 360ppi, for example).

But there is no "detail hidden in a file". It's all there, otherwise we'd have no way to extract it.

 

[Paulmorgan]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

Crap

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Crap again

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

Go and read a book or two.

 

[Hen3ry]

I totally disagree with the OP's condemnation of RAW shooters as being unable to shoot the perfect JPEG.

I virtually never shoot the perfect JPEG, but I know enough PP to fix them up.

Can't be bothered with RAW though -- but I have been many situations where people on this forum and elsewhere have produced exceptional results from RAW.

 

[ulfie]

JPEGs are cooked like TV dinners. RAW is uncooked like sushi. Whatever that means ... ;-)

 

[Paulmorgan]

JPEGs are cooked like TV dinners. RAW is uncooked like sushi. Whatever that means ... ;-)

Sushi is cooked as well.

 

[Tony8232]

I totally disagree with the OP's condemnation of RAW shooters as being unable to shoot the perfect JPEG.

I virtually never shoot the perfect JPEG, but I know enough PP to fix them up.

Can't be bothered with RAW though -- but I have been many situations where people on this forum and elsewhere have produced exceptional results from RAW.

 

[Paulmorgan]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

The real problem here is that many raw shooters don't know how to achieve an optimal raw exposure. They expose for the "perfect JPEG" as you put it and, therefore, do not achieve the biggest potential advantage of shooting raw. See bottom of post for more information

As an aside, the notion that one type of shooter is a better, smarter or more knowledgeable photographer simply because they shoot one way or the other is absurd. The only thing such a claim proves is that the person making the claim is NOT among the better, smarter and more knowledgeable photographers.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

And how would you know that's the case? And how do you know that your "perfect jpeg" that looked "perfect" on you camera's LCD or EVF in the field looks perfect on your monitor or your target audience's monitors? What about when it's printed on glossy paper with a dye-based printer? What about when it's printed on matte paper with a pigment-based printer?

And what's the correct white balance? The WB that looks "identical" when your eyes are adjusted to the scene or the white balance that looks correct when you're viewing the reulting image under very different lighting conditions?

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

JPEG shooters can take images to the extremes just as easily as raw shooters. Regardless, it's a question of taste and not a question of format.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

Most photographers who choose to shoot JPEG+raw are exposing for the JPEG (what looks right to them in the EVF or what the in-camera metering is telling them to do).

Not true at all, most raw shooters I know plan on getting as much as possible correct in the camera, the exact same as jpeg shooters.

The difference between raw and jpeg is that raw files have more latitude for mistakes and post processing.

ETTR is fine if you like that sort of thing but it is barely any better, it would be an absolute disaster for shooting people, weddings and so on.

Another good reason for shooting raw is color calibration, most users in these forums are not using color management to it full potential.

If they were really exposing for optimal RAW capture, they'd be utilizing an ETTR strategy based on monitoring critical highlight exposure and intelligent increase of ISO as a last resort. That strategy will maximize dynamic range and minimize noise with often clearly visible advantages in increased detail and decreased noise in shadows, blue-skies and other lower midtones, decreased posterization in tonal gradients, decreased blown highlights in clouds and light sources. However, it will very often result in the jpeg being too bright overall or too dark overall with all sorts of shadow/highlight problems that can't be satisfactorily corrected in postprocessing. The ONLY valid reason to shoot JPEG+raw if you're primarily a raw shooter is to get the benefits of viewing the magnified jpeg to check on correct focus/resolution post capture.

So...your original claim has a kernal of truth to it with respect to raw shooters who don't know how to correctly expose for raw (and there are many out there in that boat), but in the broader sense your claim is complete hooey. If you know what you're doing, shooting raw will almost always be the better option for getting the best image quality.

 

[Michael M Fliegel]

There is no problem with JPEG shooters, if they don't want to do any post processing. I have shot LSF JPEGS for years and I am only now starting to try RAW to see what I am missing.

 

[SpinOne]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

lol... if you say so

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

I shoot RAW pretty much exclusively, and that's not at all what I do.

To me, JPEGs are like shooting slide film, and RAW is like shooting negative film.

JPEGs provide a very good quality image, and are often very close to a final image; but many of the critical decisions are made for you by the camera's algorithms.

With RAW, the photographer has a great deal more control over the image and more options. Cameras can often make bad decisions -- e.g. about WB or NR. I may not have 30 minutes to nail down the perfect WB, or screw around with JPEG settings, when I'm about to shoot.

Most of my images are converted to B&W, and some images involve extremes of dynamic range, sometimes even a stop or so beyond what M4/3s can really handle. Shooting in JPEG would seriously cramp my style.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

Do what test? What extremes should I not use? Should I not shoot landscapes because they involve high dynamic range?

How does giving up control make an image somehow better?

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

*shrug*

Sure, there are some people who think you can rescue an under-exposed image if it's shot in RAW. However, by focusing on those people, you're missing the critical distinction:

If you want control over your images, shoot RAW.

If you want to work fast, if you don't like post, if you aren't good at post, shoot JPEG.

Otherwise, don't order me around (unsolicited no less) on how to process my images, and I won't command you how to process yours.

 

[bs1946]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

When I started with digital cameras, I shot only JPEGs, just like you. I didn't understand RAW files, histograms, or post-processing. I still don't really understand histograms but I've managed to make it out of post-processing kindergarten. Before I started with digital cameras I used film cameras for over fifty years and that is an area I know quite well. One day a little light bulb went off in my head and I was able to correlate digital shooting to using film

• With film life is simple; you load a roll of film, expose it taking photos, develop the film to get negatives, and use the negatives to print photos.
• With digital, the sensor is your never ending supply of film. So now you expose the sensor to take a photo and the processor creates a RAW file which is you negative.
• Now you can tell the little photo lab in your camera to just output a JPEG which is your Digital Print and it will but, it will trash the RAW file which is your digital negative, when it's done printing the JPEG.
• Or you can tell the little photo lab in your camera to give you both the RAW file and a JPEG copy. Now it's like going down to the corner drug store and getting your developed negatives and prints back.
• Or you can tell the little photo lab in your digital camera to just process and keep the RAW file until you download it, so you can create your own JPEGs in your computer's little photo lab after you look at the thumbnails, which is the digital equivalent of printing a contact sheet. Now I'm with this crowd I only shoot RAW and create the JPEGs I want with no more post-processing than you can do in your camera before it trashes the RAW file.

Just imagine the response you would have gotten from people like Ansel Adams if you suggested they should burn their negatives after they make one print because it would make them better photographers.

 

[108]

What amazes me a lot is how often people use A and S modes or even P mode and shoot RAW because they believe they are in control.

And just looking DSLR guides, it is almost always told to use those S and A modes.
I did too and i relayed the spot metering etc.

But since E-M1 I needed to relearn photography as it was faster than ever and more direct. Body best out there designed for a direct control and input.

- Shooting anymore only in M mode, faster than any other mode in any other camera.
- No worrying about WB
- Wide range possibilities for creative work in the camera.
- Spot metering? Exposure settings? It is direct control with the vision and I dont need those as I see what I get and when I know what I want I can get what I see.

are you saying you don't worry anymore about wb because you're shooting in M mode or because the abilities of the Em1 ?

 

[Martin Ocando]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

I'm a 100% RAW shooter, and have been since I embraced digital ten years ago. I went directly from SLR to DSLR, never used a point and shoot.

Now, over the past years, part of my photography have become more an artistic expression than a reality interpretation, so I do extensive dodging and burning, but not because I didn't get the exposure right in the camera, it is imperative that I get my image right from the start, or I can risk noise and overall image quality, but because I use certain techniques which give my images a look that, might not be extremely realistic, but have an edge which other don't have. I also use white balance as an artistic decision, so having the ability to adjust it without channel clipping or posterization is key.

I can't do anything of the above with JPEG, at least not with the results that I need, so JPEG is a no-no for me.

 

[DonParrot]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

If you shoot jpeg then you're trusting the camera to make all the right decisions. That's only an advantage if its little brain is smarter than yours.

Dan

Just learn to use and adjust your JPEG engine.

 

[DonParrot]

JPEGs are cooked like TV dinners. RAW is uncooked like sushi. Whatever that means ... ;-)

The opposite is the case: JPEGs are a the three-course meal, perfectly seasoned in the kitchen by the cook, while the Raw ist just an unflavoured meal that is spiced up later, at the table, with all-purpose seasoning.

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch

 

[jiijiiviivii]

I dare you to say that straight to a landscape shooter's face.

 

[tko]

i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

There is zero benefit from JPEG shooting. Slower editing, poorer results, less control. Oh, maybe it saves disk space, aside from that, JPEG is a disadvantage.

Think I'm joking? How many settings does your camera have for JPEG? Contrast, color, vividness, curves, WB. Maybe a dozen things to adjust. NONE of that matters for raw. Compose, expose and focus. JPEG is only faster is you stick with a basic, universal set of settings for all shots, which obviously isn't perfect-else why would they give you a choice?

It will take me 10 seconds to get all those settings perfect back in my easy chair, each photo optimized. It will take you 10 minutes to set all those for best results in-camera, outdoors in the sun-and by then your subject will have left. Not to mention my computer does a better job than your camera.

Finally, there is no such thing as a "perfect" JPEG. And if there was, you couldn't recognized it on a tiny LCD.

Funny how the people who advise taking perfect JPEGs can't figure out how to process raw properly. Think that's a coincidence?

 

[Bervilat]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

Sir, as a big admirer of the art of good trolling, I must applaud you. This is pure genious trolling, you state a clearly stupid fact while being convincing and managed to fool a lot of people.

I take my hat off for you.

Cheers!! Keep on with the good trolling work!

 

[AmbleYonder]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

no different than shooting an "in camera" raw on the spot if the scenario is not beyond the cameras limitations

They go to their computer (time consuming)

and you got a pre set applied to your JPEG by the on board computer inside the camera. (.l.a.z.y....)

and they are forgotten how the scene really was

how it really really was LOL. how the camera evaluated the scene for you .is what you mean.

I say shoot your JPEG properly

i am pretty sure you think you are .

but never mind less competition for the perfect pic award.

.......JPEGS got more points right ?